DCN: 15-15-0229-03-003e
Comment
Text in Original PAR/CSD
Remarks / Answers to the Comments
Responses to IEEE 802.3 comments on IEEE802.15.3e PAR and CSD
• What is the revision plan
for IEEE Std 802.15.3--‐
2003? It appears that there
are two approved
amendments IEEE Std
802.15.3b--‐2005 and IEEE
Std 802.15.3c--‐2009, plus an
exising amendment project.
The 4th amendment will be
subject to the requirement to
revise the standard after three
years and three amendments.
An extension can be
requested, but the PAR
should not be approved
without knowing the revision
plan.
The plan is to open a 15.3 Revision PAR in
July and proceed with the Revision right
away completing it before either
amendment. We would include the scope
and purpose fixes that are currently in the
15.3e PAR so those do not get lost and we
would update the 15.3d PAR so everything
is consistent. The revision will also change
the standard from one using 64 bit MAC
addresses to one using 48 bit MAC
addresses, which is needed for full O&A
compatibility. That is currently being
addressed at the amendment level so this
would be much simpler and cleaner. IEEE
SA has agreed to provide an edition by
May 2015 which will serve as the basis for
the Revision
• The P802.15.3d PAR
should never have been
approved as submitted. The
15.3e PAR fixes these
problems but if 15.3e is
approved first, these fixes
and Scope and Purpose
changes would then be
backed out by 15.3d.
– This makes the two
projects contingent in some
way that the PAR form is ill-‐ equipt to handle.
– A modified PAR should be
submitted for 15.3d to
change Scope and Purpose
language to refer to the
standard, not the project.
This could be part of the
revision plan (modified PAR
or conversion of 15.3d into a
revision will be submitted
when approval order is
clear.)
– Both PARs should clearly
indicate that if 15.3d is
approved after 15.3e the
scope and purpose should not
change from that specified in
15.3e.
Noted. These comments deal mostly with
15.3d and the consequences of the
limitations of MyProject. We are aware of
the issues and feel the proposed Revision
plan is the most effective way to manage
the situation
• 2.1 (non substantive) —
The correct format is
“Amendment: <amendment
name>”, not “Amendment
for <amendment name>”.
Noted. We will advise the NesCom admin
to clean that up
DCN: 15-15-0229-03-003e
• 5.1 — It would be unusual
for participants to increase
from 20--‐30 in pre--‐PAR
activities (as indicated in the
CSD) to the 50 indicated in
the PAR. For 802, the
resonse should relate to the
TG doing the work, not the
number of WG members.
5.1 Approximate number of people expected
to be actively involved in the development of
this project: 50
• 5.6 — There is an
interesing gap in the
stakeholders. There is
significant industry evidence
of devices that include RF
communication capability
using proprietary chips (not a
chip vendor) yet the product
is manufactured by a
contractor (so also not a
manufacturer of RF
equipment). Technology
suppliers would be more
general, and would include
providers of design libraries.
5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: Chip
vendors, radio frequency (RF) equipment
manufacturers, enterprise infrastructure
providers, wireless operators and consumers.
• 1.2.1,b) — Similar nit to the
comment on PAR
Stakeholders. The important
thing is to get folk
participating who are
involved in semiconductor
and equipment development.
It usually doesn’t matter who
is manufacturing, more
important who will be
implementing it.
b)
users.
• 1.2.5,a) — The response
highlights an imbalance of
costs without justification for
that being acceptable or
expected.
a) Balanced costs (infrastructure versus
attached stations).
Action: Revise 1.2.5 a) to read.
The cost of the communications technology
proposed here is only a small fraction of the
cost of the infrastructure it uses to serve this
application.
The incremental cost of the
communications technology proposed to
serve this application is consistent with the
value of the service provided.
Action: Accept
Change: In section 5.1, change "50" to
"30".
Action: Accept
Change: Revise 5.6 to read as follows:
Chip vendors, chip makers, chip designers,
technology suppliers, radio frequency (RF)
equipment manufacturers, enterprise
infrastructure providers, international
wireless carriers/service providers,
academic researchers, government research
laboratories, semiconductor manufacturers,
communication equipment manufacturers,
system integrators and consumers.
Multiple vendors and numerous
There have been 20-30 people, affiliated with
10 or so companies, participating in the
development of this project and actively
showing interest. Participants include
international wireless carriers/service
providers, academic researchers, government
research laboratories, semiconductor
manufacturers, communication equipment
manufacturers, system integrators and end
users.
Action: Accept
There was also an 802.11 comment on this
clause. This addresses both.
Change: Revise 1.2.1 b) to read as follows:
There are a large number of multimedia
companies who are expected to serve this
application space. The application is aimed
at a broad consumer market which is
comprised of a large number of users.
Participants in the standard include chip
vendors, chip designers, technology
suppliers, radio frequency (RF) equipment
manufacturers, infrastructure providers,
international wireless carriers/service
providers, academic researchers,
government research laboratories,
semiconductor manufacturers,
communication equipment manufacturers,
system integrators and consumers.
DCN: 15-15-0229-03-003e
Responses to IEEE 802.11 comments on the 802.15.3e PAR and CSD
5.2a – “high rate” – What is
high rate? –consider
changing to “high rate (up to
100Gbps)”
“Data rates are high enough”
Not defined enough for a
scope statement.
5.2.a. Scope of the complete standard: This
standard defines PHY and MAC
specifications for high data rate wireless
connectivity with fixed, portable and moving
devices. Data rates are high enough to satisfy
a set of consumer multimedia industry needs,
as well as to support emerging wireless
switched point-to-point and high rate close
proximity applications.
Action: Modify the scope of the 802.15.3
standard to the following. We did not elect
to use the suggested resolution since 1 bps
would qualify as high rate with that
wording.
Also a reminder that this is the revised
scope for the base standard not this project
hence the lower number.
This standard defines PHY and MAC
specifications for high data rate wireless
connectivity (typically over 200 Mbps)
with fixed, portable and moving devices.
Data rates are high enough to satisfy a set
of consumer multimedia industry needs
such as streaming HD video, as well as to
support emerging wireless switched pointto-point and high rate close proximity
applications.
5.4 – “High” and “Low” are
relative terms that should be
defined as what is “High” or
“Low” reword without
“high” or “low”
“Wireless switched
point-to-point” – what is
this? Does “switched” relate
to a packet or connection
type switch?
Should intra-device
really be inter-device?
Wireless
backhaul/fronthaul? – what is
meant by this?
5.4 Purpose: The purpose of this standard is
to provide for low complexity, low cost, low
power consumption, high data rate wireless
connectivity among devices supporting a
variety of applications including things like a
set of consumer multimedia industry needs,
wireless switched point-to-point applications
in data centers, wireless backhaul/fronthaul
intra-device communications and a wide
variety of additional use cases such as rapid
large multimedia data downloads and file
exchanges between two devices in close
proximity, including between mobile devices
and stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates,
etc.), and/or wireless data storage devices.
7.1 Similar Scope – 802.11ad
and 802.11ay are similar.
Please note similarities and
differences.
7.1 Are there other standards or projects
with a similar scope?: No
802.15.3 and 802.15.3c preceded 802.11ad
and 802.11ay. 802.15.3e merely builds on
802.15.3 and 802.15.3c to support new
applications in the 802.15.3 family.
802.11ay was not available while this PAR
was being drafted.
a)
Action: Revise CSD 1.2.1a to read as
follows:
CSD:
Broad sets of applicability:
“high rate” –nebulous – give
range to define what is “high
rate”
Broad sets of applicability.
There is a need for close proximity high
rate communications to service the
transmission and rapid exchange of large
data files based on close proximity, pointto-point connections, potentially to large
numbers of mobile devices in the same
space. This amendment consists of IEEE
802.15.3 MAC additions and an
unlicensed 60GHz Physical layer,
delivering date rates up to 100Gbps, for
use in a wide variety of use cases such as
rapid large multimedia data downloads
and file exchanges between two close
proximity devices, i.e. mobile devices,
stationary devices (kiosks, ticket gates,
etc.), and other wirelessly enabled data
storage devices.
Action: Disagree. This language has
already been approved by NesCom as part
of 802.15.3 base standard revised purpose
included in the 802.15.3d PAR.
Note: The use of the term “intra-device” is
correct.
There is a need for close proximity high
rate communications to service the
transmission and rapid exchange
(subseconds) of large data files (on the
order of 25 Gbits) based on close
proximity, point-to-point connections,
potentially to large numbers of mobile
devices in the same space. This
amendment consists of IEEE 802.15.3
MAC additions and an unlicensed 60GHz
Physical layer, delivering date rates up to
100Gbps, for use in a wide variety of use
cases such as rapid large multimedia data
downloads and file exchanges between
two close proximity devices, i.e. mobile
devices, stationary devices (kiosks, ticket
gates, etc.), and other wirelessly enabled
data storage devices.
DCN: 15-15-0229-03-003e
CSD:
Multiple vendors: Please
answer the question about the
market potential not the
attendees affiliations.
1.2.4 don’t list the
corporations in the CSD, but
do cite reference to the
evidence alluded to.
1.2.5c) do not use “Wi-Fi”
change to “WLAN” or
delete
b)
users.
Multiple vendors and numerous
There have been 20-30 people, affiliated with
10 or so companies, participating in the
development of this project and actively
showing interest. Participants include
international wireless carriers/service
providers, academic researchers, government
research laboratories, semiconductor
manufacturers, communication equipment
manufacturers, system integrators and end
users.
1.2.4 Technical Feasibility
Each proposed IEEE 802 LMSC standard
shall provide evidence that the project is
technically feasible within the time frame of
the project. At a minimum, address the
following items to demonstrate technical
feasibility:
a) Demonstrated system feasibility.
The sequence of link setup, data
transfer and link release occurring
within a short duration has already
been demonstrated for point-topoint wireless communication
systems by Sony, Toshiba and
others.
b)
Proven similar technology via
testing, modeling, simulation, etc.
Similar main components of the
technology and signaling are being
used in today’s systems by Sony,
Toshiba and others. Hence, the
involved testing overhead
associated with a commercial
development undertaken by
manufacturers is known to be
reasonable.
c)
Consideration of installation costs.
The installation of fixed standalone
terminals would be similar to that
of installing Wi-Fi access points
and when included in devices like
ticket gates would not add to the
installation cost of that gate
Action: Revise CSD 1.2.1b to read as
follows.
There are a large number of multimedia
companies who are expected to serve this
application space. The application is aimed
at a broad consumer market which is
comprised of a large number of users.
Participants in the standard include chip
vendors, chip designers, technology
suppliers, radio frequency (RF) equipment
manufacturers, infrastructure providers,
international wireless carriers/service
providers, academic researchers,
government research laboratories,
semiconductor manufacturers,
communication equipment manufacturers,
system integrators and consumers.
Action: Revise CSD 1.2.4a and b to read as
follows.
a)
Demonstrated system feasibility.
The sequence of link setup, data
transfer and link release
occurring within a short duration
has already been demonstrated
for point-to-point wireless
communication systems by a
number of multimedia
organizations and universities
such as TU Braunschweig.
b)
Proven similar technology via
testing, modeling, simulation,
etc.
Similar main components of the
technology and signaling are
being used today in proprietary
commercial systems and in
research laboratories at
University institutions such as
TU Braunschweig.
Action: Accept. Change “Wi-Fi” to
“WLAN”